If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why are you suprised? Remember that youtube video from the first election of all the celebs pledging their support fot BO? They stated that we should pledge to be better servants to Obama. Here it is:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pTQawLBC59g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Last I checked the president was the servant to the people, not the other way around.

My plan is to get all my debt paid off, stock up on supplies, food, ammo, medical, and weapons, and try to get my family through the next four years, and hopefully have a country left afterwards.

Trying to insert logic into an illogical situation will make you go crazy. Just ride it out, and it will come to pass like all things. Continue to be a good, normal, responsible person, and it will leave some hope that this country can figure it out as a whole again one day. But dont hold your breath

That's the point.
Why don't you put something on YouTube or the internet mocking muslims.
See if you don't get death threats.

It is my First Ammendment right to say anything about anything or anyone.
So again. Who cares. If you are just so easily offended by everything you are more then welcome to find a place to live where everyone coddles to your emotional instabilities. I hear China is nice. Everyone must conform to a communistic ideal and free thought is taboo.

If you make a Church of the Fonz and praise Henry Winkler, you will upset people. You will also get people who will follow you. If you need a 2000 year old book that is based on pegan rituals to tell you how to behave like a good human in society than I believe you have more to worry about than what Jamie Foxx has to say.

By 'YOU' I am not making a personal attack, it is a blanket 'YOU' directed at any one who fits the description.

Are we attempting to defend people who say something about someone from people who say something about them by saying that people have the right to say something about someone and somehow place the blame back on the second person?

Person A says something bad about person B
Person C says something bad about person A because they said something mean.
Person D says something bad about person C because they said something mean about person A and defends person A noting they have the right to say something mean

The logic (or lack of) it takes at this point is baffling me.

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess

I never said anything about christians being persecuted. They have a right to say whatever they want and I whole-heartedly support that, because that same amendment is what sustains my right to respond in whatever verbal manner I want. But what people choose to joke about is a good indication of who they are. And I think dark days are coming, not sure exactly whats gonna happen but its about time america had a reality check and sooner or later it will get one- I hope its nothing too horrible. Im not trying to instigate an "internet-onslaught" or anything but I figured I owe you my opinion. Think what you will and I will think what I will.

btw, If it comes to persecution I will remember this:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’"- John 15:18-25

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.

our argument is not with the ten commandments or or crosses. you can display those on your private property all you want. the issue is when government supports and endorses religion. this is unconstitutional. for claiming to want liberals and atheists to read the constitution, you should try reading amendment number 1. the state cannot endorse religion. that means no ten commandments in front of courthouses, no public schools leading prayers, etc etc etc

when Muslims are trying to put there religious laws and symbols on our books, we will protest them just as hard as when you do it. i am for example, very very much against anti-anti-muslim laws, i have personally been a participant in both draw Muhammad days for example.

all religion is about control, all religion is evil at its core. the only way to be free, is to be free from religion.

all religion is about control, all religion is evil at its core. the only way to be free, is to be free from religion.

I cannot disagree more. The core value of the vast majority of religions are positive values. Its people that have used religion for selfish and evil means that have harmed them. Religion can be enlightening and uplifting - often you just need to seperate the religion from the institution.

I cannot disagree more. The core value of the vast majority of religions are positive values. Its people that have used religion for selfish and evil means that have harmed them. Religion can be enlightening and uplifting - often you just need to seperate the religion from the institution.

the core values of all western religion is a worship of authority. this is antithetical to freedom.

the core values of all western religion is a worship of authority. this is antithetical to freedom.

Arguable. Christ gave a single command in John 13:34. There are reasonable arguments that point out this may have been intended to replace Mosaic law.

Is that as most institutions teach Christianity? Not always and perhaps not often. The teachings of Christ have been hammered into something else by various institutions but we are discussing the core values and teachings. In fact the more I look at the writings about Christ the more I find that he questioned authoirty openly and often.

I don't accept the sound byte argument. From either side. You have also adjusted your argument. Is your argument that control is evil? Are the two biconditionally equivilant?

Arguable. Christ gave a single command in John 13:34. There are reasonable arguments that point out this may have been intended to replace Mosaic law.

Is that as most institutions teach Christianity? Not always and perhaps not often. The teachings of Christ have been hammered into something else by various institutions but we are discussing the core values and teachings. In fact the more I look at the writings about Christ the more I find that he questioned authoirty openly and often.

I don't accept the sound byte argument. From either side. You have also adjusted your argument. Is your argument that control is evil? Are the two biconditionally equivilant?

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify. but the core belief of all western religions is that we are subject to an authority, god. whether we want to be or not, because he created us, he has authority over us.

this is the exact opposite of the foundation of democracy, where we consent to be governed. locke's natural man, a man who was not created by god, and thus is TOTALLY free. subject to only the authorities he gives consent to.

Are you certain this must be true? I will grant my own person philosophy borrows from Hinduism as much as Christianity but I think you are mistaken in that premise.

Creation of a being is not biconditionally equivilant to having authority over said being. Does a parent have authority over their competent adult child? If you created, in the lab, a sentient being would you have authority over it?

Are you certain this must be true? I will grant my own person philosophy borrows from Hinduism as much as Christianity but I think you are mistaken in that premise.

Creation of a being is not biconditionally equivilant to having authority over said being. Does a parent have authority over their competent adult child? If you created, in the lab, a sentient being would you have authority over it?

that is the premise of all western religions. we will all be judged when we die, and by him won't we? means he has authority over us. we do not consent to that authority, it is in our nature, as his creations.

that is the premise of all western religions. we will all be judged when we die, and by him won't we? means he has authority over us. we do not consent to that authority, it is in our nature, as his creations.

Actually concepts such as universal salvation argue that mankind has been spared such judgement and they are a component of some religions

If that authority exists is it evil? I am bound by the principles of physics (ie I cannot fly unaided). Does this make those principles evil?

Actually concepts such as universal salvation argue that mankind has been spared such judgement and they are a component of some religions

If that authority exists is it evil? I am bound by the principles of physics (ie I cannot fly unaided). Does this make those principles evil?

well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?

i did not say authority is evil, i said that non-consensual authority means we are not free.

I disagreed that all religion is evil at its core. Are you saying that I misinterperted your position that all religion is evil at its core? If it is not the authority why is all religion evil

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

morality is tough subject, and it takes a lot of time, thought and effort to try and do the right thing. religion short circuits this - here is a list! don't have to justify it, god said this is what is right, so do it. and that list ... changes ALL THE TIME. so its an arbitrary and easily manipulated list of right and wrong. and it has the backing of the creator of the universe.

this can be summed up by, the religious are afraid of what will happen when people think for themselves, the atheist is afraid when the don't think for themselves.

I believe, that when given the right information, people try to make the best decisions they can. this is why instead of short circuiting this ability to think and reason and feel, morality should be based on that.

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

morality is tough subject, and it takes a lot of time, thought and effort to try and do the right thing. religion short circuits this - here is a list! don't have to justify it, god said this is what is right, so do it. and that list ... changes ALL THE TIME. so its an arbitrary and easily manipulated list of right and wrong. and it has the backing of the creator of the universe.

this can be summed up by, the religious are afraid of what will happen when people think for themselves, the atheist is afraid when the don't think for themselves.

I believe, that when given the right information, people try to make the best decisions they can. this is why instead of short circuiting this ability to think and reason and feel, morality should be based on that.

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

I think you attempted an argument of verbosity.

Your statement was that all religion is, at its core, evil. We have adjusted the argument so that authority is not the reason it is evil. Is your argument now that religion causes people to do evil and is thus evil? I don't agree with this. Atrocities are committed by both religious and non-religious people.

Your first point addresses the institutions of religion - not religion itself.

I don't agree that religion, let alone all religion, is evil. I don't see your argument that it is as being very robust.

Your statement was that all religion is, at its core, evil. We have adjusted the argument so that authority is not the reason it is evil. Is your argument now that religion causes people to do evil and is thus evil? I don't agree with this. Atrocities are committed by both religious and non-religious people.

Your first point addresses the institutions of religion - not religion itself.

I don't agree that religion, let alone all religion, is evil. I don't see your argument that it is as being very robust.

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good. .

I think you are wrong.

I can name religions that encouraged the use of logic, reason, and conscious (Unitarian Universalism, Unitarianism before that).

As universal salvation (a tenent of some religions) argued that salvation was already attained the "bribery" to do good was gone and doing good was done for its own sake.

Has religion been used for evil purposes? Sure it has. So have swords and guns. So has government. That does not make the instrument evil. Even if you could argue successfully that some religions were evil I do not think you could make the argument that it applied to all.